Chhattisgarh High Court
MCRCA/1340/2026 of RAJ GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 9 September 2026
2026:CGHC:39730 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCRCA No. 1340 of 2026 1 - Raj Gupta S/o Late Shiv Narayan Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o - Joda Pipal Maharaja Gali, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C. G.) ... Applicant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh
CGHC010317662026
2026:CGHC:39730
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MCRCA No. 1340 of 2026
1 - Raj Gupta S/o Late Shiv Narayan Gupta Aged About 28 Years R/o - Joda Pipal Maharaja Gali, Ambikapur, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C. G.)
... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Station House Officer, Police Station Excise Department Divisional Flying Scot, Division Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause title is taken from CIS)
For Applicant
: Mr. V. K. Pandey, Advocate
For State/Respondent
: Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G. A.
Hon’ble Shri Justice
Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
10/09/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Applicant has preferred this application under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 162/2025 registered at Police Station- Excise Department Divisional Flying Scot Division Surguja, District Surguja (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections 22 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police after finding the auto to be driven in suspicious condition, the co-accused was tried to intercept, upon which the auto driver/co-applicant made an attempt to fled away. The co-accused was stopped and upon search 21 numbers of Buprenorphine injection was seized from his possession. In the memorandum statement of co-accused the name of applicant is stated and it is alleged that the seized articles have been provided to him by the applicant. Thus, the applicant was also implicated in the crime in question.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was falsely implicated in the crime in question. He was not present in the City or place of incidence on the date of incident.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for applicant and would submit that applicant is in habitual conduct and two other crime numbers were registered under the NDPS Act, 1985 and therefore, applicant is not entitled for the benefit of the anticipatory bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents enclosed along with bail application.
6. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of learned counsel for the respective parties, nature of allegation and further considering that the Crime No.657/2023 for the offence under Section 22 (c) of NDPS Act, 1985 and Crime No.31/2022 for offence under Section 21 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985 were earlier registered against the applicant, I do not find present to be a fit case to allow this anticipatory bail application.
7. Accordingly, this application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 stands dismissed. Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
JUDGE Ravi Mandavi